Have we a stay of execution?

In June 2016 four archaeological test trenches were dug on the footprint of what is to be Rathlin Energy’s second well site, West Newton B.  Much confusion reigned over whether or not these test trenches were breaking planning regulations and in spite of our numerous emails and telephone calls East Riding of Yorkshire Council came firmly down on the side of Rathlin Energy and allowed the excavations to continue.   We put together a timeline of events:

On Monday 22nd December 2014 East Riding of Yorkshire Council Strategic Planning Department received a planning application from Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited (Rathlin Energy) to construct a temporary well site, associated access track and up to two appraisal boreholes. The access track, when completed, will cover a distance of 1.54 kilometres, the well site area will cover 1.25ha, up to 3 water monitoring boreholes will be drilled (depth not stated) and the well(s) will be drilled to a depth of approximately 2,100m.

Humber Archaeological Partnership (HAP) were consulted as part of the application process with the specific remit of commenting on the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment completed by Allen Archaeology Limited.

The desk based assessment to assess the archaeological potential of the proposed wellsite carried the following summary:

“Data was gathered from a range of primary and secondary sources including a search of the Humber Sites and Monuments Record, East Riding Record Office, and Beverley Local Studies Library.

There is very little recorded evidence for prehistoric activity in the search area with only a single flint flake from fieldwalking recorded.

There is no evidence for Roman or Anglo-Saxon activity in the study area.

The historic settlement core of West Newton is to the Northwest of the site, but shrunken village earthworks along West Newton Road indicate that the settlement was once more extensive. However, this activity is some distance from the site, which is likely to have been agricultural land in the medieval period.

There is one listed building and a registered park and garden within the search area, both of which are at sufficient distance from the proposed wellsite to not be adversely affected by the development in terms of setting.

Overall, the site has a negligible archaeological potential of local significance, with the greatest potential being for features and deposits associated with undated cropmarks that may potentially be of a later prehistoric or medieval date.”

In commenting on the Allen Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Mr Dave Evans, Partnership Manager, clearly stated: “We responded to an earlier pre-application consultation for this proposed development on 19th December 2014, and our advice remains unchanged.” Despite extensive enquiries with both Humber Archaeological Partnership and East Riding of Yorkshire Council I have been unable to trace any record of correspondence of the advice referred to by Mr Evans but was informed by Victoria from HAP the advice given may have been by telephone as no trace of any written correspondence could be found. I was also informed by Mr Matthew Sunman, East Riding of Yorkshire Council Strategic Development Control Unit no written copy of the advice had been forwarded to the Council and he was unaware of any pre-application conversation between Mr Evans and Allen Archaeological Partnership.

The comment on the application by Mr Evans is explicit in its appraisal of the site and clearly states “in view of the potential significance of this site…” with the recommendation that “either the application is withdrawn in its present state, or that any decision should be deferred …”

I find it extremely disturbing that despite Mr Evans’s clear evidence of the importance of the site, and the fact he had been consulted on prior to submission of the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, Allen Archaeological Partnership saw fit to submit a report that clearly ignored the evidence provided by such a renowned expert on the archaeology of Holderness.

On the 13th March 2015 Rathlin Energy responded to HAP’s comments stating “Rathlin Energy kindly requests that the consideration of the planning application by the planning committee be deferred until such time as an archaeological evaluation is undertaken in accordance with recommendation proposed by Humberside Archaeological Partnership.”

On 02 June 2015 the report to the Planning Committee, meeting 04 June 2015, by the Director of Planning and Regeneration was made public. Under Consultation Replies, page 37, Humber Archaeological Partnership the report stated “No objection, Condition suggested”.

However, the advice from Dave Evans was clear the planning decision for the development should be either withdrawn or deferred.

On 12 June 2015 James Goodyear, Archaeological Development Manager, Humber Archaeological Partnership, responded to the additional information submitted by Rathlin Energy on the 13th March 2015 stating “our original advice in our letter dated 18th February 2015 remains unchanged in light of the additional information”.  Quite clearly the original advice from HAP was that the application should be withdrawn or any decision deferred.  It appears East Riding of Yorkshire Council ignored the advice.

We had no doubt of the importance of West Newton B as an archaeological site of international importance with it’s undocumented pre-historic wetlands history and as a result of our conversations and correspondence  HAP are now including Historic England in the decision making process for the Condition of Discharge.  We recently received a copy of an email from Historic England to HAP setting out further requirements before the Written Scheme of Investigation can be discharged and work commences to build the compound.

I have now received a response from the Science Advisor of Historic England , who I approached to review the work undertaken to date at the above site, specifically with regard to the potential for environmental deposits relating to the wetland.

I still need to speak to the advisor to seek some clarification on the scope of the works, but he comments as follows:

I’ve had a look at the Humber Wetlands Project monographs.  It would seem that West Newton should have a more or less complete Holocene sequence of clays, sands and gravels with the potential for organic-rich/peat deposits.  This is broadly supported by data from the closest BGS borehole at NGR TA 2047 3785 see (http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/18539489/images/18539458.html).  The site is therefore important, and could warrant further study.  The HWP monographs suggest the geomorphological and palaeoenvironmental history of Holderness is well-understood, although such a dynamic landscape will have localised variation so greater resolution may be desirable.

The access road is unlikely to have any significant impact, but the well itself could.

I’d suggest that a geoarchaelogist review the data and make recommendations.

We are now keeping a watchful eye as events continue to unfold in the hope that this time East Riding of Yorkshire Council will come down on the side of the archaeology, Residents and Environmental Activists and ensure the area is properly excavated with any findings fully documented, photographed and recorded.  We are also hoping that buried deep in the Wetlands and kept secret for so many millennia is an untold wealth of archaeological treasure so important it becomes an international site of special interest and no drilling will be allowed.

 

 

 

Disputing the ‘facts’

As part of their planning application to East Riding of Yorkshire Council for West Newton B well site, Rathlin Energy submitted supporting documentation, including one piece of narrative they named “Fact and Evidence Based Consultation.”  Rathlin Energy’s documents, despite Residents and Activists protestations to the council, was accepted, as far as we can ascertain, without challenge.  In point of fact on the occasions we spoke to the planning department about the inconsistencies of Rathlin’s documents we are told that it’s not the council’s job to dispute Rathlin’s documentation they leave that to the ‘experts’.  But isn’t that why they are Planning Officers, to scrutinise planning applications and ascertain when facts are not actually facts but blatant mistruths?

We wrote the following in response to the ambivalence of a Conservative-led regional council and planning department who never seem interested in what we, the residents of Holderness, have to say.  A council who seem quite happy to forget they work for the residents and not large corporations who have no interest in the area other than to exploit what they can from it and then depart as quickly possible leaving nothing but destruction and shattered lives in their wake.

Disputing the ‘Facts’

Lorries Leaving West Newton A